Regarding a very recent issue brought up in (I'm pretty sure) Supreme Court, does anyone know anything about this: to loosely describe it, it deals with the authority of police to stop or confront someone for a DUI based solely on a tip?
What I cannot remember is if there was a ruling or what, and if there was a ruling, exactly what it was. I gathered that it was the opinion of the court that this was beyond the authority of the police and that they had to actually have a visual or other "hard" (meaning something like swerving or speeding) reason to make a stop. I would like to get the most complete, but understandable, info. Please don't link to the Supreme Court webpage (I mean home page, if it's a link to this actual issue on the website, then OK), I tried that already with no success. Thank you for any help.
Regarding a very recent issue brought up in (I'm pretty sure) Supreme Court, does anyone know anything about this: to loosely describe it, it deals with the authority of police to stop or confront someone for a DUI based solely on a tip?
What I cannot remember is if there was a ruling or what, and if there was a ruling, exactly what it was. I gathered that it was the opinion of the court that this was beyond the authority of the police and that they had to actually have a visual or other "hard" (meaning something like swerving or speeding) reason to make a stop. I would like to get the most complete, but understandable, info. Please don't link to the Supreme Court webpage (I mean home page, if it's a link to this actual issue on the website, then OK), I tried that already with no success. Thank you for any help.
It doesn't really matter if the law was passed or not.
If the officer feels you are intoxicated s/he will say that they saw you swerve/you didn't signal/they thought you weren't wearing your seatbelt and that's the reason they pulled you over.
Yes, I do understand that if the officer KNOWS about this, then he will surely cover his a$$ and say that he saw somethng himself.....BUT....there are a lot of times when the police do NOT know the law themselves and the prosecution ends up with the inability to convict based on things exactly like this (the cop making a huge legal mistake). The infamous "technicality"!!
But anyway, all that doesn't matter, I just want to read the official law or opinion, that's all. I do not recall if it was an actual ruling or an opinion of the Court. Can you help with that?
Yes, I do understand that if the officer KNOWS about this, then he will surely cover his a$$ and say that he saw somethng himself.....BUT....there are a lot of times when the police do NOT know the law themselves and the prosecution ends up with the inability to convict based on things exactly like this (the cop making a huge legal mistake).
But anyway, all that doesn't matter, I just want to read the official law or opinion, that's all. Can you help with that?
I'm sorry - did you just say that officers of the law don't know the law???
Every officer will say he "saw something himself." If they have no grounds to pull you over, they can't legally pull you over - DUI or not. So they'll come up with anything and everything.
And no, the prosecution doesn't end up with the inability to convict because of the original reason for the stop. The blood test says you were drunk which leads to the conviction; if the blood test says you're not drunk, then you don't get the conviction in the first place.
What is your purpose for asking this question? Is this regarding your recent run-in with the law over whether or not you were intending to drive while impaired?
I forget whether the Supreme Court upheld or overturned the lower court ruling, but the SCOTUS ruling was that a police officer could not act SOLELY on an anonymous tip. So the police officer would have to also se the driver driving erractically before they could pull them over.
Well, thanks Scott!! So do you happen to have any info on how to find this piece? I have been to the SCOTUS site and could not locate it, and also on Google, just got a bunch of lawyers ads and junk!! I would very much like to look at it. Thanks again.
...the police officer would have to also se the driver driving erractically before they could pull them over.
Which is what I said. Some officers actually do see things; some don't but want to make the traffic stop anyway, so they make something up.
Personally, I find the whole issue to be somewhat useless because if the person operating the vehicle is impaired, they can't possibly know if the officer did or didn't see them swerve to begin with. If they're sober, then there's no ticket.
The police typically report on how they initiate contact. So if an officer doesn't know about the specific law, which is entirely possible and happens a lot, then they would present a great opportunity for the defense. I would guess that legal mistakes- warrantless arrests and unconstitutional acts make up a huge bulk of lost convictions, in fact I know of many instances that used laws exactly like this to avoid conviction. I know of at least one person that I can think of right now that used a warantless arrest defense and got all charges dismissed. I even know a person who got off on a charge (a rather serious charge) because the Judge was arrested and the trial was put off for so long that "he was denied his right to a speedy trial", which is a Constitutional right. So it's things like this that interest me, when laws are broken by those that are supposed to uphold them. It's not possible for anyone to know every law everywhere, even lawyers have law libraries and reference materials.........so it's not beyond belief at all that police officers make detrimental legal errors, it happens all the time.
If this IS the law, and the police report says that the officer acted on a tip to make contact because the officer didn't know the law, then, well, that is what the law is all about. The officer broke the law and made a great opportunity for the defense. Police have to follow rules too!!
Not the officer did not necessarily break the law. SCOTUS ruled that acting SOLELY on a tip wasn't probable cause. That's not the same as breaking a law.
That's exactly the article I read in my paper!! OK, so it said it wasn't a ruling, but that it would probably spur cases in other states (this one pertained to VA).
Quote:
The Virginia ruling freed Joseph Harris of Richmond, who was arrested early one morning after a caller had reported his green Nissan Altima was headed south on Meadowbridge Road. The tip included a partial license plate number as well as his name.
Harris stumbled out of his car and appeared obviously intoxicated when the officer tried to question him. Nonetheless, the Virginia high court said it was an "unreasonable search" to stop and question a motorist based entirely on a caller's tip.
So he was apparently guilty (as in, it was pretty apparent he was drunk driving), but not found guilty, which is exactly what I was talking about. Obviously, it was known somehow that the police stopped the man solely on a tip (must've been in the report or the officer admitted it) so just as I said, how many officers break or skirt the law and lose a conviction because they do not know the law or they're found to be operating outside the law!!?? Happens all the time. I don't find it useless at all, in fact I find it fascinating!! And I do absolutely believe that the legal system and legal officials like officers need to obey the law and observe our rights, and if they don't, then they need to pay just like any other criminal. Maybe they pay by losing a conviction, maybe it's by other means, but if they weren't held accountable, I'd hate to see what would happen.
Linear Mode
